The journalists at BuzzFeed News are proud to bring you trustworthy and relevant reporting about the coronavirus. To help keep this news free, become a member and sign up for our newsletter, Outbreak Today.

The Slovenian Marxist Slavoj iek is one of the most prominent (and prolific) writers in the world of contemporary philosophy, author of groundbreaking studies like Less Than Nothing and The Sublime Object of Ideology. He is also, I regret to inform you, at it again.

In Pandemic! COVID-19 Shakes the World, a short book to be published in April, iek casts his gaze on the coronavirus pandemic. The book has been produced at a breathless pace for the publishing world, in part because it recapitulates material from his weekly columns in RT, the government-funded publication formerly known as Russia Today. (iek will receive no royalties from this book, donating them instead to Doctors Without Borders.)

There are some passages of beauty, as when he remarks that, "It is only now, when I have to avoid many of those who are close to me, that I fully experience their presence, their importance to me." But those thoughts jostle with undigested chunks of film dialogue, complaints about political correctness, footnotes that mostly point to articles in the Guardian or to Wikipedia, and suggestions that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whom Swedish authorities were investigating on the basis of rape and sexual assault allegations until last year, is "Christ on the cross." In other words, about what you'd expect if you've read one of his 47 other single-authored books written in English: a hire-wire juxtaposition of far-left political theory and pop culture, held together by the force of his rumpled charm.

Although the pieces collected here are scattered, iek does have, more or less, a central argument: Because of the coronavirus, the worlds capitalist systems will necessarily need to be replaced. He writes, "measures that appear to most of us today as Communist will have to be considered on a global level: coordination of production and distribution will have to take place outside the coordinates of the market."

iek takes pains to make his proposals seem reasonable to a less-than-communist reader, painting his approach as an outgrowth of various responses that have been floated to the pandemic and the economic collapse it has triggered: an expanded role for international groups like the World Health Organization, a universal basic income, and governments organizing health care across national borders producing and distributing masks, requisitioning hotel rooms for the sick all outside of the free market. No more cruise ships, Disneyland, or cars. Sounds great.

That all seems like pretty straight-ahead and sound advice, really, even if ieks vernacular laden with slogans from French student protesters and psychoanalysis doesnt seem to have been updated since the late 60s. And iek is at his best when he reminds us to "resist the temptation to treat the ongoing epidemic as something that has a deeper meaning." We're not being punished for our sins or being sent a message from the natural world to respect the limits of the environment. The virus that has no way of knowing us just lucked into a pattern of replication that turns out to be really, really bad for humans. "The really difficult thing to accept is the fact that the ongoing epidemic is a result of natural contingency at its purest, that it just happened."

Sadly, iek fails to follow his own advice.

In many places, iek is asking the right questions Why are so many people OK with exploiting blue-collar workers while the privileged sit at home taking conference calls? How did the distrust between the state and people make the outbreak worse in China? Are governments using the pandemic as an excuse to declare a state of emergency that might never be lifted? And iek does provide a novel metaphor for the revolution he thinks will bring down capitalism, comparing the pandemic to the finishing move that Uma Thurman's character uses at the end of Kill Bill: Volume 2: "the coronavirus epidemic is a kind of 'Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique' on the global capitalist system."

But then he arrives at Wuhan. Or, at least, his dream version of the Chinese city in which the pandemic originated, where iek finds "an unexpected emancipatory prospect," in an exoticized version of the city in China where the virus is thought to have begun. There, he finds what he thinks is a silver lining in all of the deaths and chaos.

"The abandoned streets in a megalopolis the usually bustling urban centers looking like ghost towns, stores with open doors and no customers, just a lone walker or a single car here and there, provide a glimpse of what a non-consumerist world might look like," iek writes of the version of Wuhan that he sees in his mind, a city in which he is able to roam without the pressure to constantly work, consume, and engage. (This passage may have been written before other cities around the world entered lockdown.)

The pandemic has given him a chance to withdraw from the hustle of everyday life, and for that iek is...grateful?

"Perhaps, one can hope that one of the unintended consequences of the coronavirus quarantines in cities around the world will be that some people at least will use their time released from hectic activity and think about the (non)sense of their predicament."

There seems to be a part of iek that recognizes that even if he dresses it up in language borrowed from the philosopher Martin Heidegger, there is something unspeakably crude about taking such a Pollyannaish position. He quickly backs off, adding, "When a masked citizen of Wuhan walks around searching for medicine or food, there are definitely no anti-consumerist thoughts on his or her mind, just panic, anger and fear."

But it's too late. iek has declared a wildly lopsided ledger to be balanced: On one side, thousands dead in Wuhan (not counting the rest of the world); on the other, a respite from speaking tours and daily errands for iek. (But not, of course, so much of a break that he can't still churn out a book.) Who's to say the universe has not maintained its balance in some mysterious way? "My plea is just that even horrible events can have unpredictable positive consequences."

My suggestion: Take a meditation class there are plenty free online. Read a book. Have a cup of coffee. Take a (socially distanced) walk. What a monstrous suggestion that in Wuhan's more than 2,500 deaths (a likely under-counted figure that could be as high as 42,000 deaths, according to an estimate made last month by Radio Free Asia) he can find solace, because the machinery of everyday banality has temporarily ground to a halt.

Otherwise, iek is left with quite a dream. But as one of Quentin Tarantino's other characters, Mr. White, says in Reservoir Dogs, "You shoot me in a dream, you better wake up and apologize."

Go here to read the rest:
The First Book About The Coronavirus Is Here, And It's Terrible - BuzzFeed News

By Oscar Grenfell 9 April 2020

At an online lecture organised by the International Youth and Students for Social Equality last Tuesday, leading WSWS writer Nick Beams exposed the bankrupt politics of Socialist Alternative and the pseudo-left, documenting their role in seeking to subordinate the working class to the capitalist political establishment amid growing social opposition.

The event was the third in a series of online lectures delivered by Beams under the title Capitalisms war on society: Why you need to fight for socialism. The speaker stressed that the differentiation from the pseudo-left was not separate from the struggle for socialism, but was at the cutting edge of defining the independent interests and tasks of the working class.

The lecture was well-received by an audience of over 190 people. Participants included workers, students and young people from most Australian states and territories, along with international attendees from Sri Lanka, New Zealand, the Philippines and a number of other countries.

A video of the lecture by Beams

Beams began by explaining that the coronavirus pandemic had triggered the greatest crisis of the capitalist system seen in our lifetimes, opening up a period of political radicalisation and socialist revolution.

The decisive question, the speaker said, was arming the emerging movement of the international working class with the lessons of history and the socialist and internationalist program of the Trotskyist movement developed in a struggle against all forms of national-opportunism.

Beams explained that the key issue is this: the working class cannot overthrow the bourgeoisie if it remains politically and ideologically subordinated to it. This required a political offensive against all those tendencies that sought to prevent the working class from striking out on an independent path, including the pseudo-left.

This had been demonstrated by the experience of the 1917 Russian Revolution. The fight waged by Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and the Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks and other tendencies that supported the liberal Russian bourgeoisie played the decisive role in politically preparing the conquest of power by the working class.

The coming to office in Greece of Syriza, the Coalition of the Radical Left, in 2015 was a confirmation of the same truth in the negative. Syriza won elections by appealing to mass hostility to the austerity measures that had led to the collapse in support for PASOK, the countrys social democratic party.

Syriza immediately formed a coalition government with the Independent Greeks, an extreme right-wing nationalist formation. Within six weeks, it was imposing sweeping cuts to social services.

Socialist Alternative and the pseudo-left internationally had hailed Syriza as a model to be emulated. In May, 2015, Beams stated, Socialist Alternative had declared that Syriza cannot be transformed into an austerity party, even as it was clear that the organisation was committed to carrying out the demands of European finance capital.

Syrizas betrayal, and Socialist Alternatives support for it, were a product of the class character of both organisations, Beams explained.

This was also evident in Socialist Alternatives support for US regime-change operations, including the CIA-instigated civil war in Syria. Leading Socialist Alternative member Corey Oakley had infamously declared in 2012 that it was necessary to end knee-jerk anti-imperialism, i.e., to dispense with opposition to the predatory wars waged by the major powers.

Hand in hand with its pro-imperialist standpoint, Socialist Alternative had refused to defend Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks publisher who is currently imprisoned in Britain and faces extradition to the US, where he would be jailed for life for exposing American war crimes.

In 2012, Socialist Alternative had lent succor to the attempts to frame Assange on bogus allegations of sexual misconduct. The organisation declared that he should go to Sweden, where the allegations were concocted, to answer the charges. It is now clear that the warnings of WikiLeaks and the WSWS that the attempt to extradite Assange to Sweden was a pretext to carry out his forced rendition to the US were entirely accurate. For years afterwards, the organisation had not mentioned the WikiLeaks founder.

Only last year, following his illegal expulsion from the Ecuadorian Embassy and arrest by British police, did Socialist Alternative publish a handful of articles condemning the attempt to railroad Assange to a US prison. However, the organisation did not repudiate its previous attack on him and boycotted all events held in his defence.

Beams explained that these positions were inextricably tied to Socialist Alternatives attempts to subordinate the working class to Labor, a party of big business, and the unions, which have suppressed every major social and industrial struggle of the past four decades.

Pointing to the relevance of these issues in the present coronavirus crisis, Beams noted that Socialist Alternative had enthusiastically welcomed the installation of Sally McManus as secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 2017. A year later, Socialist Alternative wrote that McManus ascension had been greeted as a breath of fresh air by many unionists, declaring that she had struck a defiant tone in contrast to her grey predecessors.

McManus is currently collaborating with the Liberal-National Coalition government on a daily basis, as it responds to the pandemic by providing billions of dollars to the major corporations that are laying off thousands of workers.

Beams explained: It is necessary to deal not only with the McManuses of the world but even more importantly with tendencies within the pseudo-left that work to prop them up.

He concluded by declaring: The immune system of the working class is developed above all through the theoretical political struggle conducted by the revolutionary party, basing itself on the great strategic lessons of struggle for socialism going back more than a century.

There is only one party which conducts such a struggle, the SEP and the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). I urge that you apply to join it tonight.

The lecture prompted a series of questions. One attendee asked the SEP to elaborate on its role in the events surrounding the coming to power of Syriza in Greece.

Beams explained that the WSWS and the ICFI had been alone in warning that Syriza would inevitably betray the working class, as a result of its history as an unprincipled amalgamation of various Stalinist and reformist tendencies, and its pro-capitalist program.

Others noted that Socialist Alternative occasionally criticises union officials. Did this, some asked, invalidate Beams analysis. In reply, he said that the pseudo-left organisations would sometimes condemn the actions of particular union bureaucrats. But they insisted that workers had to remain trapped within these thoroughly corporatised organisations.

All of them rejected the position of the ICFI, which was that the globalisation of production had rendered the nationalist and reformist program of the unions completely bankrupt. The unions had been transformed into open instruments of big business, necessitating the creation of genuine organisations of struggle, including independent rank and file committees.

Some participants asked why it was that Socialist Alternative played the role that it did. Beams said that like other pseudo-left organisations, they were descended from groups that had broken from the Fourth International amid the post-World War Two boom of global capitalism, rejecting its insistence on the revolutionary role of the working class.

The pseudo-left, Beams stated, spoke for affluent sections of the upper middle-class in academia, the public sector and the union officialdom, whose wealth had increased as a result of soaring share values. They had a material stake in defending the status quo by preventing the working class from turning to a genuine socialist perspective, and sought to advance their own interests through various forms of identity politics based on gender, race and sexual orientation.

Throughout the meeting, a small group of individuals, clearly opposed to Beams exposure of Socialist Alternative, sought to disrupt the event, playing music while he was speaking and shouting incoherently. The unsuccessful attempt to block the discussion underscored the pseudo-lefts concern over the growing support won by the SEP, and its inability to respond with substantive political arguments.

Next Tuesdays lecture will be on the role of identity politics. The fifth meeting will feature an interview and discussion with SEP (US) Presidential candidate Joseph Kishore. The details will be posted on the WSWS and on social media over the coming days.

Featured statements on the coronavirus pandemic

Donate today.

';var pos = Math.floor($('#content > p').length / 2);$('#content > p').slice(pos,pos+1).before(html); };

See the rest here:
At IYSSE (Australia) online lecture, Nick Beams exposes Socialist Alternative and the pseudo-left - World Socialist Web Site

Julian Assange was handcuffed 11 times, stripped naked twice and had his case files confiscated after the first day of his extradition hearing, according to his lawyers, who complained of interference in his ability to take part.

Their appeal to the judge overseeing the trial at Woolwich crown court in south-east London was also supported by legal counsel for the US government, who said it was essential the WikiLeaks founder be given a fair trial.

Edward Fitzgerald QC, acting for Assange, said the case files, which the prisoner was reading in court on Monday, were confiscated by guards when he returned to prison later that night and that he was put in five cells.

The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, replied that she did not have the legal power to comment or rule on Assanges conditions but encouraged the defence team to formally raise the matter with the prison.

The details emerged on the second day of Assanges extradition hearing, during which his legal team denied that he had knowingly placed lives at risk by publishing unredacted US government files.

The court was told Wikileaks had entered into a collaboration with the Guardian, El Pas, the New York Times and other media outlets to make redactions to 250,000 leaked cables in 2010 and published them.

Mark Summers, QC, claimed the unredacted files had been published because a password to this material had appeared in a Guardian book on the affair. The gates got opened not by Assange or WikiLeaks but by another member of that partnership, he said.

The Guardian denied the claim.

The Guardian has made clear it is opposed to the extradition of Julian Assange. However, it is entirely wrong to say the Guardians 2011 Wikileaks book led to the publication of unredacted US government files, a spokesman said.

The book contained a password which the authors had been told by Julian Assange was temporary and would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours. The book also contained no details about the whereabouts of the files. No concerns were expressed by Assange or Wikileaks about security being compromised when the book was published in February 2011. Wikileaks published the unredacted files in September 2011.

The Guardians former investigations editor David Leigh, who wrote the book with Luke Harding, said: Its a complete invention that I had anything to do with Julian Assanges own publication decisions. His cause is not helped by people making things up.

Assange, 48, is wanted in the US to face 18 charges of attempted hacking and breaches of the Espionage Act. They relate to the publication a decade ago of hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and files covering areas including US activities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Australian, who could face a 175-year prison sentence if found guilty, is accused of working with the former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak classified documents.

As well as rejecting allegations that Assange had put the lives of US sources in danger, much of the hearing was taken up with defence counter arguments to the US case that he helped the former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a scrambled password stored on US Department of Defense computers in order to continue sending leaked material to Wikileaks.

You can accurately describe this chapter of the case as lies, lies and more lies, Summers told the court at the outset of the day.

Manning already had access to the information and did not need to decode the scrambled password, or hash value. Nor could she have done so, as is alleged, in order to gain someone elses password, because access to the system was recorded on the basis of IP addresses, Summers says.

As for the US contention that Assange had solicited leaks from Manning, a whistleblower who served more than six years of a 35-year military prison sentence before it was commuted by Barack Obama, Summers drew on Mannings insistence that she was moved by her conscience.

James Lewis QC responded for the US government by accusing the defence of consistently misrepresenting the US indictment of Assange, adding: What he [Summers] is trying to do is consistently put up a straw man and then knock it down.

For example, on the question of cracking the password hash, he emphasised that the US was making a general allegation that doing so would make it more difficult for the authorities to identify the source of the leaks.

Lewis rejected claims made on Monday by the defence that the US had deliberately ratcheted up the charges against Assange in response to the fact that Swedish authorities announced in May 2019 their intention to reopen the investigation of Assange for alleged sexual offences and issue a European arrest warrant.

The inference that charging Mr Assange with publishing the names of sources was simply ratcheting up the charges is defeated by the objective facts that the [US] grand jury found and indicted him on, he said.

It just does not follow we will ratchet up the charges in case there might be a competition. We have a clear unequivocal and legal basis for charging him and that is the end of it.

The hearing continues.

Visit link:
Julian Assange was 'handcuffed 11 times and stripped naked ...

news, latest-news

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange isn't eligible to be temporarily released from jail as part of the UK government's plan to mitigate coronavirus in prisons. There are now 88 prisoners and 15 staff who have tested positive for COVID-19 in the country and more than a quarter of prison staff are absent or self-isolating due to the pandemic. Justice Secretary Robert Buckland has announced that selected low-risk offenders, who are within weeks of their release dates, will be GPS-tagged and temporarily freed to ease pressure on the National Health Service. "This government is committed to ensuring that justice is served to those who break the law," he said in a statement on Saturday. "But this is an unprecedented situation because if coronavirus takes hold in our prisons, the NHS could be overwhelmed and more lives put at risk." The Ministry of Justice confirmed with AAP that Julian Assange, who is being held on remand in Belmarsh prison, will not be temporarily released because he's not serving a custodial sentence and therefore not eligible. The government is also working to expedite sentencing hearings for those on remand to reduce crowding in jails, but the Australian won't be affected by that measure either. The WikiLeaks founder is only one week into his four-week US extradition hearing and at this stage it's uncertain whether it will resume as planned at Woolwich Crown Court on May 18. Assange's next procedural hearing is set for the Westminster Magistrates Court on Tuesday. He applied for bail last week with his lawyers citing concerns about the risk of coronavirus but he was knocked back by District Judge Vanessa Baraister. In her ruling, she said the Australian had skipped bail in the past and taken refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for almost seven years making him a flight risk. The US government is trying to extradite Assange to face 17 charges of violating the Espionage Act and one of conspiring to commit computer intrusion over the leaking and publishing of thousands of classified US diplomatic and military files. Some of those files revealed alleged US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US charges carry a total sentence of 175 years' imprisonment. Australian Associated Press

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/silverstone-feed-data/87a0b655-86bb-42ad-a2f4-2da5076d1c27.jpg/r0_74_800_526_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange isn't eligible to be temporarily released from jail as part of the UK government's plan to mitigate coronavirus in prisons.

There are now 88 prisoners and 15 staff who have tested positive for COVID-19 in the country and more than a quarter of prison staff are absent or self-isolating due to the pandemic.

Justice Secretary Robert Buckland has announced that selected low-risk offenders, who are within weeks of their release dates, will be GPS-tagged and temporarily freed to ease pressure on the National Health Service.

"This government is committed to ensuring that justice is served to those who break the law," he said in a statement on Saturday.

"But this is an unprecedented situation because if coronavirus takes hold in our prisons, the NHS could be overwhelmed and more lives put at risk."

The Ministry of Justice confirmed with AAP that Julian Assange, who is being held on remand in Belmarsh prison, will not be temporarily released because he's not serving a custodial sentence and therefore not eligible.

The government is also working to expedite sentencing hearings for those on remand to reduce crowding in jails, but the Australian won't be affected by that measure either.

The WikiLeaks founder is only one week into his four-week US extradition hearing and at this stage it's uncertain whether it will resume as planned at Woolwich Crown Court on May 18.

Assange's next procedural hearing is set for the Westminster Magistrates Court on Tuesday.

He applied for bail last week with his lawyers citing concerns about the risk of coronavirus but he was knocked back by District Judge Vanessa Baraister.

In her ruling, she said the Australian had skipped bail in the past and taken refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for almost seven years making him a flight risk.

The US government is trying to extradite Assange to face 17 charges of violating the Espionage Act and one of conspiring to commit computer intrusion over the leaking and publishing of thousands of classified US diplomatic and military files.

Some of those files revealed alleged US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US charges carry a total sentence of 175 years' imprisonment.

Australian Associated Press

Go here to see the original:
UK govt won't release Assange amid virus - The Canberra Times

In a prison cited for failing to curb infections, Doctors4Assange warn that Julian Assange is at high risk of contracting the deadly coronavirus.

Doctors4Assange strongly condemns last Wednesdays decision by UK District Judge Vanessa Baraitser to deny bail to Julian Assange. Despite our prior unequivocal statement[1]that Mr Assange is at increased risk of serious illness and death were he to contract coronavirus, and the evidence of medical experts, Baraitser dismissed the risk, citing UK guidelines for prisons in responding to the global pandemic: I have no reason not to trust this advice as both evidence-based and reliable and appropriate.[2]

Notably, however, Baraitser did not address the increased risk to Mr Assange relative to the general UK prison population, let alone prisoners at HMP Belmarsh where Assange is incarcerated. Nor did she address the rapidly emerging medical and legal consensus that vulnerable and low-risk prisoners should be released, immediately.

As the court heard, Mr Assange is at increased risk of contracting and dying from the novel disease coronavirus (COVID-19), a development which has led the World Health Organization to declare a public health emergency of international concern[3]and a global pandemic.[4]The reasons for Mr Assanges increased risk include his ongoing psychological torture, his history of medical neglect and fragile health, and chronic lung disease.

Edward Fitzgerald, QC, representing Mr Assange, said, These [medical] experts consider that he is particularly at risk of developing coronavirus and, if he does, that it develops into very severe complications for him If he does develop critical symptoms it would be very doubtful that Belmarsh would be able to cope with his condition.[5]

Baraitsers casual dismissal of Mr Assanges dire situation in the face of the COVID-19 emergency stood in stark contrast not only to the expert medical evidence, but the proceedings themselves. The hearing took place on the third day of the UKs coronavirus lock-down. Of the two counsels representing Mr Assange, Edward Fitzgerald QC wore a facemask and Mark Summers QC participated via audiolink. US attorneys joined the proceedings by phone.

Mr Assange himself appeared by videolink, which was terminated after around an hour, rendering him unable to follow the remainder of his own hearing, including the defence summation and the District Judges ruling. Mr Assanges supporters attending in person observed social distancing measures. Overall only 15 people were in attendance, including judge, counsel, and observers.

Baraitser further erred by stating that because no prisoners at HMP Belmarsh currently have coronavirus, Assange was not yet at risk. Mr Assanges counsel noted, in contrast, that they had difficulty visiting him after being told by Belmarsh staff that over 100 Belmarsh employees are currently self-isolating. Furthermore, it is unclear whether any Belmarsh prisoners have even been tested for coronavirus.

Baraitsers assurance that government measures were adequate to protect Mr Assange also rang hollow on the very day the UK government announced that Prince Charles tested positive for COVID-19. If the UK government cannot protect its own royal family from the disease, how can it adequately protect its most vulnerable prisoners in prisons, which have been described as breeding grounds for coronavirus?

Furthermore, news emerged on the day of the hearing that 19 prisoners in 10 prisons across the UK had tested positive for coronavirus, an increase of 6 prisoners in 24 hours.[6]From the time of the hearing to date, two UK inmates have died from COVID-19, both of whom, like Assange, are men in high risk groups.[7]

This news, and the decision to deny Mr Assange bail, is alarming in light of numerous statements and reports that have called out the risk to prisoners, urgently recommending release of non-violent prisoners, as well as actions taken by other nations to alleviate the risk.

Specifically, a March 17 report[8]by Professor of Public Health, Richard Coker of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found that congregate settings such as prisons provide ideal conditions for explosive transmission of coronavirus. Hours matter in terms of containment, Professor Coker warns. The report recommends that if detention is unnecessary it should be relaxed. This should be done before the virus has a chance to enter a detention centre.

Accordingly, on the same day as Mr. Assanges bail hearing, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, issued a statement[9]calling on authorities to release prisoners who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, as well as low-risk inmates. Now, more than ever, governments should release every person detained without sufficient legal basis, including political prisoners and others detained simply for expressing critical or dissenting views, she said.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has warned that in a health crisis such as that posed by COVID-19, the rights of detained people must be protected under the UN Mandela Rules governing the rights of prisoners, noting that prisons are home to vulnerable populations such as the elderly, inmates with illnesses or disabilities, and pregnant or juvenile detainees. Such populations are often detained in facilities that are overcrowded and unhygienic, in some cases dangerously so she stressed.

Physical distancing and self-isolation in such conditions are practically impossible, the High Commissioner wrote. With outbreaks of the disease, and an increasing number of deaths, already reported in prisons and other institutions in an expanding number of countries, authorities should act now to prevent further loss of life among detainees and staff.

Consistent with that advice, in Mr Assanges home country of Australia, on March 24 the New South Wales government announced[10]the early release of select prisoners, based on their health vulnerability and custodial and conviction status, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the US, the chief physician of Rikers Island, New York, has urged judges and prosecutors to release inmates, where possible, to protect them from coronavirus, and 600 prisoners incarcerated for minor and non-violent offences have been released in Los Angeles. Over 3,000 doctors and medical workers have also signed an open letter urging US immigration authorities to release detainees in order to mitigate the COVID-19 outbreak.[11]

Adding their legal voices to these medical and human rights authorities, the day after Mr Assanges bail hearing, three professors in law and criminology recommended granting bail to unsentenced prisoners to stop the spread of coronavirus.[12]

Julian Assange is just such an unsentenced prisoner with significant health vulnerability. He is being held on remand, with no custodial sentence or UK charge in place, let alone conviction.

Doctors4Assange are additionally concerned that keeping Assange in Belmarsh not only increases his risk of contracting coronavirus, it will increase his isolation and his inability to prepare his defence for his upcoming extradition hearing, in violation of his human right to prepare a defence. Mr Assanges lawyers have been increasingly restricted from visiting him as prisons lockdown visitation to prevent spread of the coronavirus.

These two factors are already major contributors to Mr Assanges psychological torture, and we are alarmed that the combination of Baraitsers decision, together with increasingly stringent prison restrictions in response to the pandemic, will intensify that very torture. This further increases his vulnerability to coronavirus.

Moreover, Assanges witnesses are unlikely to be able to travel to his extradition hearing in May, due to travel restrictions put in place by either the UK or their home countries. This could result in further delay to his extradition hearing, thereby prolonging his medically dangerous abuse by psychological torture and politically motivated medical neglect, as we detailed in our letter published in the March 7 issue ofThe Lancet.[13]

Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor in chief of WikiLeaks, summarised Baraitsers decision in a manner consistent with the overwhelming medical and legal consensus, and long held-medical ethics: To expose another human being to serious illness, and to the threat of losing their life, is grotesque and quite unnecessary. This is not justice, it is a barbaric decision.[14]

Contact:info@doctorsassange.orgTwitter:https://twitter.com/doctors4assange

[1]From the Doctros4Assange website:https://doctorsassange.org/embargoed-press-release-doctors-for-assange-reply-to-minister-payne-18-03-20/

[2]From Marty Silk live tweet during the proceedings:https://twitter.com/MartySilkHack/status/1242807708778192897

[3]From the World Health Organization website:https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)

[4]From the World Health Organization website:http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/news/2020/3/who-announces-covid-19-outbreak-a-pandemic

[5]Bridges for Media Freedom, Briefing, Assange Bail Application, 25 March 2020.

[6]https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/03/25/prisons-19-inmates-test-positive-for-coronavirus-in-10-jails/

[7]https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/26/second-uk-prisoner-dies-contracting-coronavirus-inside-12459973/

[8]https://detentionaction.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Report-on-Detention-and-COVID-Final-1.pdf

[9]https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25745&LangID=E

[10]https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw-prepares-for-early-release-of-prisoners-during-covid-19-pandemic-20200324-p54db5.html

[11]https://countercurrents.org/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-u-s-doctors-demand-immediate-release-of-prisoners-and-detainees

[12]http://theconversation.com/we-need-to-consider-granting-bail-to-unsentenced-prisoners-to-stop-the-spread-of-coronavirus-134526

[13]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30383-4/fulltext

[14]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/julian-assange-coronavirus-prison-bail-release-belmarsh-latest-a9424621.html

Read the original post:
ASSANGE EXTRADITION: Doctors Warning on Assange in a Covid-19 Breeding Ground - Consortium News

The Covid-19 crisis has created a dire situation for inmates in British prisons, WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson has warned, including Belmarsh prison where Julian Assange is being held despite a request for emergency bail.

In a video posted by WikiLeaks official campaign to stop Assanges extradition to the US, Hrafnsson said prisoners were being kept mostly to their cells and had no access to any activities.

It doesnt take an expert to understand that the prison environment is the worst environment for illnesses such as Covid-19.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied a request for bail made by Assanges legal team last week, ruling that the pandemic does not provide grounds for his release, despite the fact that the journalist suffers from a chronic lung condition and may be a high-risk case if he contracted the virus.

Baraitser justified her denial by saying that there were no known cases of the coronavirus infection in Belmarsh. Assanges lawyer Edward Fitzgerald QC claimed recently, however, that the defense team were denied entry to the prison because 100 staff were self-isolating due to fears over the spread of the highly contagious disease.

Hrafnsson also slammed reports that in some prisons, inmates with regular flu-like symptoms were being placed in cells with others who had tested positive for the virus, leaving them to potentially contract the more serious infection. The situation was outrageous, if not criminal, he said.

No one knows how widespread the virus is inside the prison, no one is testing. Journalists who are asking questions are getting misleading answers, if they are getting any answers at all, Hrafnsson added.

The WikiLeaks editors warnings come as investigative website Declassified UK revealed that Assange is only one of two prisoners at Belmarsh being held on a bail violation.

Figures provided to the website by the British Ministry of Justice (MOJ) show that about 20 percent of prisoners were held for murder, with two-thirds of all inmates incarcerated for violent offences. Twenty prisoners were being held for sex crimes against children, and 16 for terrorism-related offences.

Only one other prisoner is being held in a similar category to Assange, described in the documents as having failed to answer court/police bail as soon as practicable.

Declassified UK also revealed that Belmarsh may be a particularly dangerous prison for inmates like Assange with health conditions since it has been repeatedly criticised by prisons inspectors since 2005 for not having adequate anti-infection precautions in place.

Official checks of the site in 2007, 2009, and 2013 found inadequate infection measures in place. A report in 2018 found that the prison had finally implemented suitable infection control policies but a report by the Independent Monitoring Boards in 2019 described the state of the showers and toilets in Belmarsh as appalling.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

More:
No one knows how widespread Covid-19 may be in Belmarsh, WikiLeaks editor says as concerns over prison conditions raised - RT

As President Donald Trumps attacks on the news media increased in 2019, journalists and news organizations in the United States faced a wide range of threats from public officials and agencies, including physical attacks, subpoenas, and unlawful searches and seizures, according to the Reporters Committees third annual report analyzing data from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

More than two dozen press freedom organizations, including the Reporters Committee, launched the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in 2017 to document threats against press freedom nationwide. The Reporters Committee surveys the Tracker data each year to assess what it means for our pro bono work as the only national legal services organization focused on protecting the newsgathering rights of journalists.

The full version of the latest report can be found at this link, but here are five key takeaways:

Journalists were the targets of 34 physical attacks in 2019. That includes at least three women who were attacked in a sexual way while filming live shots.

As in previous years, the report found, protests were especially dangerous locations for journalists, though Trumps rallies, which he often uses to disparage the press, were also the site of two physical attacks against reporters.

While 2019 saw fewer arrests of journalists just nine last year, compared to 11 in 2018 and 38 in 2017 there was an uptick in the number of subpoenas reported to the Tracker, seeking the records or testimony of reporters. The Press Freedom Tracker identified 27 total subpoenas last year, compared to 25 in 2018 and eight in 2017.

Troublingly, several journalists and news outlets reported that they believed they were subpoenaed as a form of retaliation or harassment for critical reporting or for filing court access or public records lawsuits.

In 2019, Customs and Border Protection officials detained journalists at border stops, searched their belongings and electronic devices, and questioned them about their work. About 75 percent of the border stops reported to the Press Freedom Tracker occurred as journalists traveled to or from Mexico.

One journalist was asked if he was part of the fake news media, while others were questioned about their political views and told to fall in line with the president.

While most searches and seizures happened at the border, according to the report, the most high-profile incident in 2019 occurred when San Francisco police searched freelance journalist Bryan Carmodys home and office as part of an effort to uncover the confidential source of a leaked police report concerning the death of a public defender.

San Francisco judges ultimately quashed all of the search warrants, deeming them illegal under Californias shield law. The Reporters Committee joined a friend-of-the-court letter in support of Carmody, successfully sued to unseal records about the arrest and searches, and filed a public records lawsuit against the Justice Department and FBI seeking information about why federal officers were present during the raid and tried to question Carmody about his source.

The Justice Department prosecuted three people in 2019 for sharing government secrets with journalists. That continues federal law enforcements efforts to use criminal laws particularly the federal spying law to punish journalistic sources. Anecdotal information suggests that the increased prosecution of leaks is making it more difficult for journalists, especially national security reporters, to gather information from sources.

And in a highly controversial move, a federal grand jury issued indictments against Julian Assange. The charges include three counts that, for the first time in U.S. history, present the legal theory that the mere act of publishing government secrets is akin to spying. The Reporters Committee has published several special analyses about the Assange charges and continues to monitor the latest developments in the case.

Read the full 2019 Press Freedom Tracker report.

The Reporters Committee regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs and its attorneys represent journalists and news organizations pro bono in court cases that involve First Amendment freedoms, the newsgathering rights of journalists and access to public information. Stay up-to-date on our work by signing up for our monthly newsletter and following us on Twitter or Instagram.

Read more here:
5 takeaways from RCFP's 2019 Press Freedom Tracker report - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

The episode looks at how Assanges website WikiLeaks published Democratic emails which roiled the Hillary Clinton campaign while he was holed up in a first-floor apartment at the Ecuadorian embassy in Belgravia, London.

TheUS government has accused Russian spies of obtaining the emails through hacking in an attempt to help Mr Trumps campaign.

Assange, who has always denied any wrongdoing, has since left the Ecuadorian embassy and is fighting extradition to America on unrelated charges.

Mr Farage made headlines when he was photographed at the entrance to the Ecuadorian embassy in March 2017, after Mr Trumps inauguration but during heightened media attention on the Trump-Russia saga.

Mr Farage has rarely spoken about the incident but told The Daily Telegraph that he made the visit because LBC, the radio station where he is a presenter, had set up an interview.

Well theres no mystery. I mean, goodness gracious me. Some of this stuff, you know, that I was passing memory sticks direct from the president to Assange. I mean I read all this with incredulity, Mr Farage said.

He added: LBC reached out to organise a meeting and they asked me would I go. I went with my producer. Look at the footage, the two of us walk in the building. That's why I was there. LBC themselves have backed that up, confirmed it in writing. There is no conspiracy.

At the time of the interview the US government had already pointed the finger at Russia for hacking into the Democratic National Committee to obtain emails.

WikiLeaks was also facing criticism for its role in publishing the material, given the negative impact it had on the Clinton campaign.

However, Mr Farage insists that during the visit he did not talk about hacked emails or Russia with Assange.

I talked to him about the European Arrest Warrant, which I'm particularly interested in. I've been opposed to it from the start. I don't like the way that it's applied, Mr Farage said.

And clearly, we talked about well, you know, you're holed up in this place, you've been here for five years, I mean, when are you going to get out?

Robert Mueller, the special counsel who investigated Russian election meddling and connections to the Trump campaign, made no mention of the meeting in his report.

Mr Farage does get one mention - that a Trump ally speculatedthat he could help gain access to Assange. But there is no evidence any such request was ever made.

During work on the podcast The Telegraph was given access to the Ecuadorian embassy to see where Assange had been living for almost seven years.

The embassy, essentially anapartment, was made up of around a dozen rooms where Assange and embassy officials mingled.

The door frame leading into one room Assange was said to have frequently occupied had a keypad on, with sources saying only he knew the code.

Assange often moved round the embassy at night and there was sometimes tensionwith embassy officials, according to those who sawthe arrangement up close.

The hearing over whether Assange should be extradited to America to face charges over the release of secret diplomatic and military documents beginning in 2010 remains on-going.

Assange has always denied doing anything wrong over publishing the material.

Go here to see the original:
Nigel Farage reveals what happened at his mystery meeting with Julian Assange in Ecuadorian embassy - Telegraph.co.uk

DONT MISS ANYTHING! ONE CLICK TO GET NEW MATILDA DELIVERED DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX, FREE!

Australian journalist Julian Assange remains locked up in a UK prison facing no British charges, having endured years of arbitrary detention and psychological torture. His extradition hearing to the United States is more of the same, writes psychologist Dr Lissa Johnson.

During SenateEstimates Hearings in the Australian Federal Parliament earlier this month,The Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Marise Payne and her ForeignAffairs colleagues were questioned about the treatment of Julian Assange duringhis recent extradition hearing in London.

The Minister and her two advisors explained to TasmanianSenator Peter Whish-Wilson that Julian Assanges treatment in London was nodifferent than that of other UK prisoners.

There was nothing to worry about, she assured herparliamentary colleagues.

Standard was the word repeatedly used, as though it hadbeen decided well in advance. Routine, in other words. Normal.

What the minster and her colleagues failed to explain,however, is that Julian Assanges treatment at the hands of Belmarsh prison authoritiesand BelmarshMagistrates Court is only standard and normal for prisoners charged withterrorism and other violent offences.

What is not standard or normal is for Walkley Award-winningAustralian journalists to be prosecuted as spies by the United States, and subjectedto maximum security conditions as a result.

What is not standard is for someone charged with nothing whatsoeverunder United Kingdom law to be treated exactly like someone charged with terrorism.

It is not standard, nor remotely normal, for journalistswith no criminal history, no custodial sentence, and no history or risk ofviolence to be detained under the harshest and most punitive conditions that UKlaw enforcement has to offer.

Nor is it standard for publishers to be held behindbullet-proof glass while on trial fortheir journalism, thereby preventing them from sitting with their lawyers,as if their journalistic skills might break loose and terrorise the court.

In fact, all of this is so far from normal that the International Bar Associations Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) issued a statement this week joining the widespread concern over the ill-treatment of Mr Assange during his extradition hearing, describing it as shocking and excessive. The Institute added that Julian Assanges treatment was reminiscent of the Abu Graib Prison Scandal, adding that with this extradition trial we are witnessing the serious undermining of due process and the rule of law.

So much for usual, fine and normal.

It is extraordinary that Australias Foreign Minister would consideranything about foreign governments treating an Australianjournalist as a terrorist and spy to be normal. Unless treating journalistsas terrorists and spies is the new normal in Australia.

We do, after all, already have 75pieces of legislation available to criminalise, prosecute, persecute andsilence journalists and their sources. We have secret trialson the way against WitnessK and DavidMcBride, which promise to scare off any other brave souls thinking ofexposing what the government does wrong. Even the New York Times has called usthe worldsmost secretive democracy.

I mean, who even knows what went on with Witness J?

Given Australias own conduct, the persecution of anAustralian journalist by a foreign state might suit the Australian governmentsagenda very nicely. It may even explain why Minister Payne was just as dismissiveof the torture of an Australian journalist as she was of criminalising journalism.

There could, however, be a more innocent explanation. Perhapsour Foreign Minister and her staff simply fail to grasp the gravity of what hasbeen going on in Belmarsh Magistrates Court.

To be fair, psychological torture is not well understood, nor are the facts of Julian Assanges case. So here they are.

The background

Julian Assange has been subject to a relentless propagandacampaign, so much so that many well-informed people are hopelesslymisinformed, both on the facts of his case, and the realities of psychologicaltorture. And yet, the truth is that the legal process underway in Belmarsh MagistratesCourt is yet more propaganda and yet more torture, aimed at criminalising journalism.

At the start of Julian Assanges extradition hearing onFebruary 24th, James Lewis QC, representing US prosecutors, addressednot the court, but, astoundingly, the media.

In his opening address to launch the press freedom test-caseof a lifetime, Mr Lewis QCinstructedthe media as to what it should and should not say. The irony, sadly, seemedlost on both sides.

Mr Lewis QC took particular care to instruct the media not to focuson the US war crimes that Julian Assange exposed. Sure we murdered some folks was the subtext. But your job is to bury it.

From that point onwards, Julian Assange was a prop in adrama designed to make him look and feel dangerous and violent. While thoseresponsible for the crimes that he exposed sat back and watched. From a comfortabledistance.

Moving Julian Assanges trial from a court in which extradition cases are normally heard Westminster Magistrates Court to a counter-terrorism court attached to Belmarsh prison provided the ideal stage for such a drama to unfold. It enabled keeping Julian Assange behind bullet-proof glass flanked by security like Hannibal Lecter, as opposed to the Nobel Peace Prize nominee that he is.

Having demonised Middle Eastern men as terrorists since9/11, enabling their abuse in rights-free hell-holes suchas Belmarsh prison, authorities are now expanding that abusive license to encompassjournalists, via Julian Assange.

Moving Julian Assanges trial to a counter-terror court alsoenabled denying him his right to sit with his lawyers like a dignified humanbeing. Because, along with handcuffing and strip-searching people repeatedly,all of this is usual in Belmarsh prison, which is known as BritainsGuantanamo.

Even worse, hearing the extradition request in a counter-terrorismcourt turned the propagandistic show-trial into yet another instrument ofpsychological torture.

Psychological torture? What psychological torture? How?

The abuse of thelegal system to psychologically torture Julian Assange

Since 2010, the pursuit of Julian Assange for his publishing activities has involved psychological harm inflicted by states, judiciaries and the media. This harm has been so sustained and severe that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, along with medical experts in torture, have deemed it to constitute psychological torture.

For her role in exposing the evidence of war crimes that Julian Assange published, and refusing to testify against Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning is also being psychologically tortured. Again. News broke today that she hasattempted suicide.

According to the UN torture mandate, under international lawpsychologicaltorture entails all methods, techniques and circumstances whichintend or are designed to purposefully inflict severe mental pain or suffering.

In addition to this, prolonged psychological torture causesphysical and medical harm, as described in thisexplanatory medical addendum submitted to the Australian Government. Themedical harm from psychological torture occurs by virtue of incessant andextreme activation of stress physiology, with potentially grave medical andneurological consequences; and altered brain activity.

In Julian Assanges case, the severity and duration of hispsychological torture has been such that his survival is currently at risk, asthe UNRapporteur on Torture and now over 170 doctors and psychologists, of whichI am one, have warned.

Alarmingly, Julian Assanges treatment in BelmarshMagistrates Court last month unnecessarily and gratuitously extended everyaspect of the psychological torture that he has endured for years.

Julian Assanges persecutors can get away with this in plainsight because the methods of psychological torture are a well-kept secret.Unlike simulated drowning, hooding or stringing people up naked, the techniquesof psychological torment cannot be photographed, and are difficult to see unlessthey are named.

Accordingly, in the interests of helping onlookers, including government ministers, to recognise the brutality unfolding before their eyes, the key instruments of Julian Assanges psychological torture are as follows.

A decade of public humiliationand shame

Public shame and humiliation are among the most aversiveexperiences for human beings. Even subtle ostracism by strangers activatesbrain centres involved in physical pain. In Julian Assanges case, the campaignof public vilification has been extreme and relentless.

Julian Assange has been branded a rapist on a world stagefor many years, using the Swedishand British judicial and law enforcement systems as tools to manufacturethe falseperception that women in Sweden had accused him of rape. In reality,neither woman did, and no charges were ever laid.

Yet non-existent rape charges have been wielded against Julian Assange for a decade, enabled by grossly inaccurate and misinformed media coverage. The campaign of defamation has been augmented by other unfounded slurs, including tarring him as a terrorist and a foreign agent.

The consequently degraded and debased public image of JulianAssange has made it possible to hold him in maximum security prison despite hislack of violent offending, and force him to sit behind bullet-proof glass, unableto participatein his own trial, thus extending the propagandistic depiction of him as amenace and a criminal.

Such public disparagement and debasement is a recognised methodof psychological torture in which the proactive targeting of victims sense ofself-worth and identity [occurs]through the systematic and deliberate violationof their dignity [using]derogatory or feral treatment,ridicule, insults, verbal abuse [and]public shaming, defamation, calumny [or]vilification.

Julian Assange has experienced, and continues to experience, all of these.

Extreme threat andintimidation

Within the isolating environment of public abandonmentfostered by the defamation campaign, Julian Assange has been under incessantthreat of extradition to the United States, where a whole ofgovernment operation against him has been underway since 2010. This operation has included:

Prominent US figures and officials have called for JulianAssanges assassinationon numerous occasions.

The UN torture mandate writes, Perhaps the most rudimentary method of psychologicaltorture is thedeliberate and purposeful infliction of fear the prolonged experience of fear can be more debilitating and agonizingthan the actual materialization of that fear. Especially credible andimmediate threats have been associated with severe mental suffering,post-traumatic stress disorder, but also chronic pain and other somatic (i.e.physical) symptoms.

Julian Assanges extradition hearing represents an undeniableintensification of the credible and immediate nature of the threats he facesand the fear they can invoke.

During proceedings the court has heard that the US government hadentertained plans to kidnap orpoison Julian Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Previously, the UN WGAD, the UN Rapporteur on Torture, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others have all warned of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment should Julian Assange be extradited to the United States. As he attends court between episodes of handcuffing, strip-searching and waiting endlessly alone in his cell, the life of horrors awaiting him in the United States must plague Julian Assange. How could it not?

Being renderedhelpless in the face of threat

Helplessness in the face of threat and danger is extremely tormentingfor human beings. In fact, powerlessness against abuse is considered a definingfeature of psychological torture. In Julian Assanges case, at every turn,in the face of grave threats to his life, person and liberty, under pursuitfrom the worlds most powerful and heavily-resourced nation, Julian Assange hasbeen prevented from acting in self-defence.

For example, oninsistence from the CrownProsecution Service, and in violation of usual procedure, Swedishprosecutors prevented Julian Assange from answering the allegations against himin Sweden, and therefore protecting himself against onward US extradition, by refusingto interview him in the UK.

This was not typical procedure. In other cases, Sweden conductedinterviews abroad on 44occasions during the same period. Sweden also refused to guarantee againstonward US extradition, making it impossible for Julian Assange to travel toSweden to clear his name without placing himself at risk.

Now, in Belmarsh prison, Julian Assange has been preventedfrom consulting with his lawyers regularly, at times only meeting them twice amonth, and he is prevented from sitting with them in court to give instructions.

On top of all of this he has been forced to attend courtwithout reading documents in the case against him. During extraditionproceedings, his legal notes were confiscated by prison authorities.

All of this while facing 175 years in US prisons under Special Administrative Measures.

Psychologically it is akin holding someone bound and gagged inthe basement while his assailant stands outside sharpening their knives. JulianAssange has endured the torment of such powerlessness, immobilisation andhelplessness since 2010.

There is nothing usual about any of this, whether inBelmarsh supermax or elsewhere. Alldefendants have the human right to prepare a defence. Those denied it, whether theyreJulian Asssange or someone else caught up in a counter-terror vortex, are notreceiving usual rule-of-law, standard, normal democratic fare.

Rendering any defendant this defenceless, let alone in a historic test case, is cruel and it is unusual.

Medical deprivationand neglect

While under such extreme and ceaseless stress, JulianAssange has been denied access to adequate medical care. This denial hasincluded obstruction of treatment for serious physical illnesses datingback to 2015, including painful conditions requiring imaging technology andpossible surgery, such as exposed dental pulp. So serious is the medicalneglect that over 170 doctors and psychologists from 25 countries have written to the UK and Australian governments demandinghis urgent transfer from prison to hospital as a life-saving measure.

As one of those signatories, I and others wrote recently in The Lancet, We havereal concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could diein prison. The medical situation is thereby urgent. There is no time to lose. Weadded, Since doctors first began assessing Assange in the Ecuadorian embassyin 2015, expert medical opinion and doctors urgent recommendations have beenconsistently ignored. Abuse by politically motivated medical neglect sets adangerous precedent, whereby the medical profession can be manipulated as apolitical tool.

That The Lancetwould publish such statements from doctors, denouncing state-sponsored, politically-motivatedmedical abuse of a publisher in the UK is unprecedented. Moreover, JulianAssanges medical neglect continues in Belmarsh prison to this day. He has notonly continued being denied the medical care that a complexcase such as his requires, but has reportedly been denied his rights to exercise,both in the prison gymnasium and via daily walks in a small outside space.

In other words, on top of medical neglect, positivehealth-promoting behaviours as simple as walking have been withheld from JulianAssange. Importantly, exercise, like social contact, is a critical natural antidoteto depression. As the court heard during his extradition trial, Julian Assangesuffers from clinical depression to the extent his suicide risk is high.

It is cruel, unnecessary and reckless to deprive him of the antidepressant and stress-relieving effects of exercise in this context, particularly while he is exposed to such excessive levels of helplessness and threat. Julian Assange is also at risk of bone problems as a result of years of confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy without sunlight. Depriving him of exercise and outdoor activity adds further gratuitous harm to this existing regime of deliberately inflicted ill-health.

Solitary confinementand isolation

Julian Assange is currently being held purely for remandpurposes, so that the US government can re-define journalism as espionage. Evenwithin that abomination of the law, there is no reason whatsoever to remand himin a maximum security facility for violent offenders. Unless, of course, the UKGovernment has redefined journalism as grievous bodily harm.

In a significant escalation of his psychological torture,remanding Julian Assange in Britains Guantanamo has facilitated holding him inisolation for up to 23 hours a day. This is a very serious matter where health,mental health, physical health and torture are concerned.

Prolonged social isolation is extremely psychologicallydamaging for human beings. Meaningful human social contact is a minimumnecessary condition for human psychological and mental functioning, much asfood and water are minimum necessary requirements for physical functioning.

Accordingly, as we explained in our doctors letterto the Australian Government, prolongedsolitary confinement does not simply cause loneliness, boredom and malaise. Itreduces neuronal activity in the brain, leading to potentially severe andlong-lasting brain damage, including cortical atrophy and decrease in the sizeof the hippocampus, the brain region related to learning, memory, spatialawareness and emotion-regulation, along with a 26% increased risk of prematuredeath.

Solitary confinement can therefore cause significantcognitive impairment, including memory, attention and concentration deficits,which can prove permanent after just a few weeks of isolation. In light of itsseriousness, under international law prolonged solitary confinement in excess of 15 consecutive days is consideredtorture.

Despite this, or because of it, Julian Assange has been held in 22-23 hours of isolation per day for many months.

Accordingto the UN torture mandate, A routine method of psychological torture is to attack the victims needfor social and emotional rapport. Persons deprived of meaningful social contact can quickly becomedeeply destabilized and debilitated.

Moreover, depriving someone of social contact for anextended period and then forcing them to stand trial is the psychologicalequivalent of depriving them of food and water and forcing them to run amarathon. For this reason alone Julian Assanges extradition hearing should besuspended on urgent medical grounds.

Instead, Julian Assanges isolation has been cruelly perpetuated in court. Former UK diplomat Craig Murray wrote that Julian Assange is not [even]permitted to shake hands or touch his lawyers through the slit in the armoured box. [Court authorities] are relentlessly enforcing the systematic denial of any basic human comfort, like the touch of a friends fingertips or the relief that he might get just from being alongside somebody friendly. A tiny bit of human comfort could do an enormous amount of good to his mental health and resilience. They are determined to stop this at all costs.

Constant surveillance

Julian Assange has been under 24/7 surveillance for years. Wewrote in The Lancet, He was surveilled in private and with visitors,including family, friends, journalists, lawyers, and doctors. Not only were hisrights to privacy, personal life, legal privilege, and freedom of speechviolated, but so, too, was his right to doctorpatient confidentiality.

Like the otherabusive psychological tactics deployed against him, surveillance isrecognised as a form of psychological torture. The UN torture mandate writesthat constant audio-visual surveillance, through cameras, microphones, one-wayglass, caging and other relevant means, including during social,legal and medical visits, and during sleep [and]personal hygiene is used inpsychological torture regimes in order to attack a victims dignity, privacyand sense of identity.

Even as he fights for his life and liberty in court, when the privacy of lawyer-client privilege could not matter more, Julian Assange is surveilled. Whatever communication he might attempt with his lawyers can be seen and heard by nearby security staff, US prosecutors and intelligence personnel.

Arbitrariness

Julian Assange has been subjected to arbitrariness for thepast decade. As a tool of psychological torture, according to the UN torturemandate when administrative or judicial power is deliberately misused forarbitrary purposes, and when the relevant institutional oversight mechanismsare complacent, complicit, inaccessible or paralyzed to the point ofeffectively removing any prospect of due process and the rule of law [this]fundamentally betrays the human need for communal trust and, depending on thecircumstances, can cause severe mental suffering, profound emotionaldestabilization and long-lasting trauma.

As doctors explainedto the Australian Government late last year, Arbitrariness attacks a personssense of control, agency and volition, to the extent that the will to liveitself can be fatally undermined. Extreme helplessness, hopelessness,destabilisation and despair, all correlates of suicide, are natural humanreactions to an environment that is persistently unpredictable, unresponsiveand hostile, regardless of a persons actions or efforts to influence it.

Having inspected the conduct of Sweden, the UK and the US,the worlds designated authority on arbitrariness, the UN Working Group onArbitrary Detention (WGAD), ruled thatJulian Assange has been arbitrarily detained since 2010. In 2019 the WGADfurther statedthat his detention in Belmarsh Prison constitutes ongoing arbitrary deprivationof liberty.

As part of that arbitrariness, rule of law and due processhas been consistently violated in pursuit of Julian Assange, as both the UN WGADand the UN Rapporteur on Torture have stated on numerous occasions and detailedin numerous letters and reports.

The first four days of Julian Assanges extradition hearing were nothing if not a bonanza of unbridled arbitrariness. Aside from preventing him from participating in his own trial, the prosecution case was a Frankensteins monster of dismembered and reassembled parts of different treaties and acts, in which inconvenient sections of the treaty under which extradition is being sought were hacked out, and an excised section of another extradition act was sutured in, to suit US objectives.

Moreover, according to US prosecutors, US law bothsimultaneously applied and did not apply to Julian Assange: as a non-US citizenhe is subject to the US Espionage Act but not the protections of the USConstitution.

If we set this Frankensteins monster loose, the US will beable to arbitrarily apply and withhold whatever sections of its own domesticlaws and treaties it likes to foreign citizens in foreign lands, while ignoringinternational and human rights law entirely.

On the question of whether Julian Assange could sit with hislawyers, the Magistrate reportedly entered the courtroom with her decision alreadywritten down, before hearing any arguments on the matter. The legal precedentsand principles advanced by Julian Assanges legal team, it seems, wereirrelevant. The decision was pre-ordained.

Worst of all, the hearing is going ahead despite evidencethat the CIA spied illegally on JulianAssanges meetings with his lawyers pre-trial. How can that be? He has beendenied the most basic rights as a defendant: lawyer-client confidentiality. Itis arbitrary in the extreme.

As if to rub our noses in it, after preventing Julian Assange from speaking with his lawyers in court, the magistrate instructed him to speak through his lawyers. Authorities, it seems, have grown so accustomed to abusing Julian Assange that they forget to even pretend that his hearing is anything other than a show trial.

What everyone shouldknow

All these years of abuse cannot help but take their toll onJulian Assange. He is clearly an extraordinarily strong and resilientindividual, but he is still a human being. Just as the human body inevitablysuccumbs to starvation and assault, so it is with the human mind.

It was foreseeable after years of psychological torture that the Belmarsh Magistrates Court would hear, as it did, that Julian Assange is suffering from trauma and clinical depression, with a high risk of suicide.

It was equally foreseeable that subjecting Chelsea Manning to the same abuses that drove her to suicidalitybefore, and which had been denounced by the UN Rapporteur on Torture at the time, would again render death more appealing to her than a life of torment.

When making the case for their client to sit with them,Julian Assanges lawyers remindedthe magistrate of this, saying, Mr Assange is a vulnerableperson. You are aware of the psychological issues in this case.

The magistrate, Vanessa Baraitser, addressed her reply toJulian Assange: I have not been told of any particular aspect of yourcondition which requires you to leave the dock and sit with your legal team.

Excerpt from:
The Julian Assange Show Trial, And The Not-So-Subtle Art Of Normalising Torture - New Matilda

War crimes whistleblower Chelsea Manning has been released from prison for refusing to testify before the WikiLeaks grand jury, which has been disbanded. This is not good news for the US government, which is hoping to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in part, on charges linked to Manning.

On 11 March 2020, news emerged that Manning had attempted suicide and was hospitalised. The next day it was announced that judge Anthony Trenga, who was overseeing the WikiLeaks grand jury, had ordered the release of Manning from prison.

Manning was imprisoned in March 2019 for refusing to co-operate with the WikiLeaks grand jury. After two months she was released, but then re-arrested and imprisoned in May.

In February 2020, Mannings lawyers filed a motion arguing that their client was incoercible and so should be released.

This motion was crucial and stated that Chelsea Mannings declaration (Exhibit A):

articulates her perceptions and the moral basis for her recalcitrance. Her solemn patience during eleven months in jail without having been accused, let alone convicted of a crime, speaks for itself.

The motion referred to a psychological assessment by Dr Sara Boyd (Exhibit B [under seal]) that:

identifies and explains the characterological attributes from which Ms. Mannings persistence and morals spring, and those attributes that function to entrench and fortify those morals.

There was also support from Nils Melzer, UN rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, whose letter (Exhibit C):

not only casts serious doubt on the permissibility of coercive sanctions, but provides profound moral support for Ms. Mannings self-perception.

Other material included a petition supporting Manning signed by 60,000 people (Exhibit D) that provided:

compelling evidence of Ms. Mannings wide social support, and the kind of impact the withdrawal of that support would have on Ms. Manning, were she to change her position.

The motion concluded:

No realistic possibility remains that continued confinement or other sanctions will bring about Ms. Mannings testimony. Further confinement cannot attain its stated coercive purpose, and therefore will be not simply futile, but impermissibly punitive.

The motion clearly worked.

In 2013, Manning, a former US army intelligence analyst, was convicted of violating Americas Espionage Act along with other offences and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. She was responsible for leaking hundreds of thousands of documents relating to the invasion of Iraq and the Afghanistan conflict. These were subsequently published by WikiLeaks.

Mannings most infamous war crime expos was the video of a US Army helicopter in Baghdad firing on civilians, including a Reuters photographer and his driver. The crew also fired on a van that stopped to rescue one of the wounded men.

Manning is the recipient of many awards, including the Guardians Person of the Year and the Sean MacBride Peace Prize.

In January 2017, former US president Barack ObamacommutedMannings sentence to end in May 2017.

With the release of Manning the WikiLeaks grand jury has been disbanded:

Mannings release could directly affect the outcome of the extradition hearing against Assange, due to resume in May. Indeed, the US authorities would no doubt have regarded Mannings testimony in regard to the initial charge of Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion against Assange as pivotal.

Mannings continued silence may weaken the case generally against Assange, given she is referred to numerous times in the additional charges relating to the Espionage Act.

The extradition farce should end now and Assange be released.

Meanwhile, Manning desperately needs help to pay off her punitive court fines, which amount to $256,000.

Featured image via Time Travers Hawkins Wikipedia / Cancillera del Ecuador Flickr

Continue reading here:
Blow to Assange extradition after Chelsea Manning is freed and grand jury disbanded - The Canary